expanding access, creating options · 2020. 8. 28. · from low-income families. at the school...
Post on 12-Oct-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
K-1
2 P
ol
icy
Ma
rc
h 2
013
Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns: How Linked Learning PatHways Can Mitigate Barriers to CoLLege and Career aCCess in sCHooLs and distriCts
Executive Summarycalifornia’s high schools have fallen short of achieving the fundamental goal of graduating all students prepared for college and career success. Especially troubling is the fact that our state’s Latino, african-american and low-income students—who represent the majority of california’s K-12 population—are less likely to achieve college and career readiness than their more advantaged peers. in the Education trust–West’s July 2011 report, Unlocking Doors and Expanding Opportunity: Moving Beyond the Limiting Reality of College and Career Readiness in California High Schools, we documented the lack of opportunity so many students have to successfully prepare themselves for college and career.
“Linked Learning” (formerly known as “Multiple pathways”) is a high school reform effort that, according to its proponents, connects a rigorous college and career preparation curriculum with work-based learning experiences and student-centered services to ensure students are both career and college ready. Early evidence suggests that well-implemented pathways prepare high school students for career and a full range of postsecondary options that includes four-year college or university.
in this report, we present our findings from a two-year study examining the Linked Learning approach. We studied how Linked Learning is shaping student experiences, and the extent to which it is helping to eliminate achievement and opportunity gaps for students of color and for students from low-income families.
at the school level, we find that certified Linked Learning schools:
• Embracesixcommonpracticesthatcontributetostudentsuccess
• Mitigateoreliminatesixtraditionalhighschoolbarrierstostudentaccess and success in college-preparatory coursework
• Haveachievedhighgraduationratesforallstudents,butmixedresultson other measures of academic achievement
at the district level, we find that three districts in the Linked Learning district initiative (LLdi) included in our study have made notable progress inimplementinganumberofsuccessfulschool-levelapproaches.However,there is considerable variation in the implementation of these practices, which suggests a need for continued vigilance around establishing core goals and best practices.
Overall we find that the Linked Learning approach, when implemented with fidelity, shows promise in achieving its goal of providing expanded and equitable access to rigorous college and career preparation.
1 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
By JEannEttE LaFOrs and tamEka mcgLawn
Expanding access, creating options: How Linked Learning Pathways Can Mitigate Barriers to College and Career access in schools and districts
H ow well are California high schools meeting the
challenge of preparing students for success in
college and career? Over the past five years, the
Education Trust–West (ETW) has examined tens
of thousands of high school transcripts in an effort to answer
this question. Our research has led us to two primary findings.
First, levels of college readiness are far too low across the board,
and especially low for low-income students and students of
color. Second, students who are unprepared for college are also
unlikely to be meaningfully prepared for careers.1
These outcomes can be traced to specific barriers, including
the longstanding practice of “academic tracking.” Low-income,
African-American and Latino students are more likely to be
tracked away from higher level academic coursework and into
remedial courses and career and technical education (CTE)
courses that lack rigor. Students in so-called “career preparation”
tracks are often doubly disadvantaged because their coursework
is often scattershot, with a course here and there, rather than
a sequence aligned with a specific career path. As a result, they
graduate from high school prepared for neither college nor career.
According to its proponents, the “Linked Learning” high
school reform initiative is designed to address these inequities
and achieves its goal through four key components: (1) a college-
preparatory curriculum, (2) a coherent sequence of rigorous
career-related coursework, (3) work-based learning experiences,
and (4) student support services. Linked Learning is not a type
of school, nor is it an off-the-shelf program. Linked Learning,
they argue, is an approach to teaching and learning that can
be implemented through several different high school models,
including small learning communities; career academies; charter
schools; and small, themed high schools in traditional school
districts. The core idea of the Linked Learning approach is to
provide students with a pathway of coursework in specific career
fields (such as healthcare, architecture, and performing arts)
that prepares them for a full range of postsecondary education
options including a four-year college or university.
In this report, we peer inside the doors of four certified
Linked Learning schools and describe what students are
experiencing, as told both by the students and other school
community members.2,3 We describe the key attributes of the
schools and highlight ways in which they have eliminated or
diminished barriers to college and career readiness found in
typical California high schools. Next, we examine academic
data and student transcripts to determine how well Linked
Learning is closing opportunity and achievement gaps. After
identifying promising practices and areas of challenge in
the schools, we turn to three districts implementing Linked
Learning districtwide as part of the Linked Learning District
Initiative (LLDI). Drawing upon stakeholder interviews and
analysis of district practices and policies, we examine the extent
to which these three districts are effectively scaling the Linked
Learning approach as efforts to expand Linked Learning are
underway through California’s Linked Learning Pilot Program
and other programs nationwide.4
Based on our analysis, we find that each of the four schools
employing the Linking Learning approach: (1) embraces
common practices designed to contribute to student success;
(2) mitigates or eliminates traditional high school barriers
to students completing the college preparatory coursework
necessary for admission into a four-year public university
in California;5 and (3) enables students to graduate at
higher-than-typical rates, but demonstrates mixed results on
standardized assessments of academic achievement.
Jeannette LaFors, Ph.D., is Director of Equity Initiatives and Tameka McGlawn, Ed.D., is Senior Practice Associate at the Education Trust–West. Co-authors are listed in alphabetical order.
2 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
At the district level, we find that the Linked Learning reforms
appear to replicate a number of the successful school-level
approaches. However, there is considerable variation in the
implementation of these practices, which suggests a need
for continued vigilance around establishing core goals and
implementing best practices of Linked Learning. At both the
school and the district level, the Linked Learning approach
shows promise in achieving its goal of providing expanded and
equitable access to rigorous college and career preparation.
aBout our researCHThe purpose of our research was two-fold. First, we sought to
understand what is happening in certified Linked Learning
schools. What are the key attributes of these schools? Does
the Linked Learning approach help tear down barriers that
too often prevent high school students from taking and
succeeding in college and career-related coursework? Second,
we wanted to know how well Linked Learning is being imple-
mented at the district level. Are positive practices identified at
the school level being replicated?
To answer these questions, we studied four Linked Learning
schools and three school districts.
FOur cErtiFiEd LinkEd LEarning schOOLsWe studied four Linked Learning schools (referred to as
Schools A, B, C, and D for confidentiality reasons). They vary
in size, from 400 students to 1,400 students. Three of the four
schools offer full-time, four-year high school programs; each
is organized around a different career theme, including health,
engineering, and digital media arts. The fourth school offers
a half-day, two-year program for students to delve deeply into
a career pathway of their choice while they continue to take
additional courses at their “home” high school.
At the same time, there are commonalities among the four
sites. Students are grouped into learning communities that
do not exceed 500 students, and each school has a higher
percentage of low-income, African-American, and Latino
students than is found across the state (see Figure 1).6 And
each, despite distinct origins and histories, was identified as
a demonstration model site and is Linked Learning “certified.”
According to this certification, the schools meet rigorous
standards, assuring that they offer clear college and career
pathways, an engaging and interdisciplinary student learning
environment, challenging academic and technical content
and work-based learning experiences, strong student support
services, a high level of district support, and an evaluation
process that drives continuous improvement. Furthermore, each
of these schools attracts droves of educators, researchers, and
policymakers seeking to learn more about their approach.
thrEE schOOL districts scaLing thE LinkEd LEarning apprOachIn addition to the four schools introduced above, we studied
three school districts, one of which houses School A.8 Like
the schools in our study, the districts are quite different
from each other. Two are urban, the other rural. They range
in size and have different student populations. Together,
these districts enroll nearly 110,000 students, and like the
schools we studied, serve higher percentages of low-income,
African-American, and Latino students than most other school
districts in the state.
The three districts we studied are engaged in the California
Linked Learning District Initiative (LLDI), a nine-district,
large-scale demonstration managed by the independent
nonprofit ConnectEd: The California Center for College and
Career and funded by the James Irvine Foundation. These
nine districts have committed to developing and rolling out a
comprehensive implementation plan to expand high-quality
Linked Learning options for their students. In support of this
goal, the districts began receiving financial support, technical
support, and coaching as early as 2008 to 2009.
FigurE 1: demographic profiles of california Linked Learning schools, 2010-2011
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
School A(4-Year
Health Focus)
School B(4-Year Digital Media Focus)
School C(4-Year
Engineering Focus)
School D(2-Year
Multiple Foci)
State
80%
70% 70%
60%
75%70%
40%
n/a
57% 59%
% Low-Income % African-American/Latino
Source: california department of Education, 2012. *data for School d is from 2008-2009.7
LinkEd LEarning tErms The terms “school,” “site,” “academy,” and “pathway” are used interchangeably in this report to identify the types of Linked Learning settings examined in our study.
a Linked Learning certified pathway can employ any appropriate delivery model and has received a status of “certified” or “model” through a pathway quality review within the past three years.
Source: internal documentation from the Linked Learning district initiative data advisory committee, december 2011.
3 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
data cOLLEctEdFrom the schools in our sample, we collected stakeholder
input, artifacts (including program descriptions, master
schedules, course catalogues, graduation requirements, and bell
schedules), and student transcript data. We augmented this with
publically available student outcome data. From the districts
in our sample, we collected input from technical assistant
providers, community stakeholders, and district administrators
as part of multi-day district site visits. (See Figure 2 for a
summary of data collection activities by stakeholder group.)
Because this study aimed to examine student experience
and the implementation of the Linked Learning approach,
stakeholder feedback was extensive and included:
• FOCUSGROUPS: We conducted multiple focus groups at each school with school faculty (counselors, school administrators, and teachers), external partners, parents, and students. In these focus groups, we asked each group to share experiences with Linked Learning and
their perceptions of the approach.
• SURVEYS: Focus group participants completed short surveys to capture stakeholder beliefs, attitudes and experi-ences related to college and career preparation; and school administrators completed a more extensive survey that also covered: budget, curriculum and instruction, student supports and safety nets, human resources, professional development, facilities, special needs populations, and CTE courses. In total, we surveyed 112 students, 26
parents, and 67 faculty members including 58 teachers.
• INTERVIEWS:Interviews with district leaders, technical assistance providers, and community-level stakeholders allowed us to explore district-level progress, challenges, and strategies for improvement.
Student outcomes are just as important as the student
experience. Therefore, we took a hard look at the evidence
from extant attainment and achievement data and from
student transcripts.
• STUDENTOUTCOMEDATA:We reviewed rates of gradu-
ation, courses completed as part of the University of
California (UC)’s “a-g” subject requirements, and student
achievement data from the California Department of
Education from 2008 to 2012, with a particular focus on
the most recently available data for African-American,
Latino, and low-income students. Because the organiza-
tional structure of one of the four schools we studied does
not allow for aggregate reporting of its student results, we
relied on other extant data. Additionally, some student
outcome measures were only available in particular
years (for example, high school cohort graduation data
for 2009 to 2010 and 2010 to 2011), which limited our
findings to single data points rather than trends over
time. Finally, because the schools did not all open in the
same year, student outcomes in a given year represent a
different point in the maturation of each school.
• transcripts: We reviewed electronic transcripts from
one cohort of seniors from three schools to determine
the extent to which they had access to and success in
college preparatory coursework during high school.
Not all of the transcripts came from the same year, and
we were unable to obtain transcript data for the fourth
school. Furthermore, our analysis does not distinguish
among students who enrolled in school for the entire
course of study from those who enrolled later from
other schools.
FigurE 2: summary of data collection activities
studEnts parEnts tEachErs cOunsELOrsschOOL admin.
ExtErnaL schOOL
partnErs
tEchnicaL assistancE PROVIDERS
cOmmunity stakEhOLdErs
district admin.
data collection
Focus group + survey +
transcripts + achievement
dataFocus group
+ surveyFocus group
+ surveyFocus group
+ survey
Focus group and/or
interview + extended
survey Focus group interviews interviews interviews
School A / District 1
School B
School C
School D
District 2
District 3
Signifies no transcripts and some missing achievement data
schOOL-LEVELSTAKEHOLDERS DISTRICT-LEVELSTAKEHOLDERS
4 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
PART 1: FINDINGS FROM THE FOUR SCHOOLSData gathered through our surveys, interviews, focus groups,
transcript analysis, and extant data analysis led us to three key
findings. These four schools each:
1. Embrace common practices that contribute to
student success
2. Mitigate or eliminate traditional high school barriers
to student access and success in college-preparatory
coursework
3. Enable students to graduate at higher-than-typical
rates, although they demonstrate mixed student
achievement results
Each of these findings is discussed in more detail below.
Finding #1: sCHooLs eMBraCe CoMMon PraCtiCes designed to ContriBute to student suCCess.As we walked the halls of these schools, spoke with students,
watched teachers in action, and sat down with administrators,
it became clear that these sites had many things in common.
Six themes emerged from stakeholder reports:
1. A culture of high expectations
2. Rigorous and integrated academic and technical
curriculum
3. A commitment to postsecondary readiness
4. Positive and personalized relationships and supports
5. Adult collaboration in support of the Linked Learning
approach
6. Programs and policies aligned to school goals
Each of these six themes is explored in more detail below.
a cuLturE OF high ExpEctatiOns
A culture of high expectations permeates these schools.
Survey and focus group data from students, parents, teachers,
and community members indicate the presence of supportive
learning environments with high expectations for student
success. Stakeholders indicated that the focus on academic
success is pervasive, regardless of a student’s racial or socioeco-
nomic background. And, staff members generally expressed
the belief that it is their job to prepare all students to be
successful in college and career. These stakeholder perceptions
reflect the fact that nearly all students are subject to the same
college and career-preparation expectations.
rigOrOus and intEgratEd acadEmic and tEchnicaL curricuLum
The Linked Learning schools offer students rigorous, coherent,
aligned, and integrated academic and technical education.
Each school offers purposeful course sequencing, career-based
pathway development, academic standards articulation from
grade to grade, project coordination, and/or work-based
learning opportunities. While the schools offer integrated
college and career learning experiences in different ways,
all core courses engage students in project-based learning,
authentic problem solving, and workplace situations. In one
school, for example, sophomores participate in an interdisci-
plinary project to learn about forensic science (the collection
and analysis of evidence to solve crimes) and apply their
understanding by creating a multimedia game (using Adobe
Flash) to teach middle school students how to solve a crime.
Students access resources from a community college, a local
medical examiner, district attorney, and law enforcement
officials. They share their projects with middle school
“We speak a language of high standards and we speak a language of constantly pushing to new levels of achievement with all students.”–Teacher
“I’ve never seen a team of teachers refuse to budge on the standards they hold students to as unyielding. We have a huge impact on how students perform and how we get them to perform.” –Teacher
FigurE 3: percentage of respondents who agree or strongly agree: “The staff at our school believes that all students can be successful in high school, college and careers regardless of their background.”
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
ExternalPartner
Parent School Administration
Student Teacher
95% 96% 95%89%
100%
Source: ETW survey data. (Question varied slightly for some groups.)
5 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
students, and enter their games into a competitive industry-
sponsored showcase of student work.
While we encountered compelling examples of rigorous
and integrated learning experiences within the Linked
Learning schools—such as the forensic science project
described above—other learning experiences seemed to fall
short. This observation is consistent with our findings from
focus groups and surveys. Stakeholders voiced different
perceptions of course rigor from school to school, raising
questions about how consistently students within and across
programs are challenged with rigorous content (see Figure
4). As one teacher shared, “We need to get a lot closer to the
‘all’ with college readiness, especially in mathematics and
writing.” Furthermore, while teachers indicated they integrate
both college and career knowledge and skills into their
teaching, stakeholder groups agreed that the integration of
career-related content into academic courses is weaker.
a cOmmitmEnt tO pOstsEcOndary rEadinEss
For the most part, students, parents, and staff in each of the
Linked Learning schools were highly knowledgeable about
college and career options. The commitment to college and
career preparation for all students is foundational to each
of the schools. Students and parents strongly agreed that
students have the opportunity to research college and career
options at school. Teachers indicated that counselors visit
their classrooms to motivate students and provide them with
postsecondary information; these counselors also offer small
group sessions and meet with upper-division students (11th
and 12th graders) one-on-one to ensure they are knowl-
edgeable about their future options.
Many students at these certified schools have visited college
campuses and taken college courses at their local community
college through “dual enrollment” programs that grant them
postsecondary credits and build their resolve to pursue college
after graduation. In addition, most if not all students can
access a wide range of career-relevant college courses, appren-
ticeships, and internships that expose them to career options,
inform them about the knowledge and skills they need to be
successful in a given industry sector, and help them acquire
college credits while still in high school.
The schools’ commitment to college and career preparation
does not end when students graduate. The schools have made
efforts to track their students after graduation in order to measure
attainment outcomes and inform program development. These
practices, however, are not yet comprehensive or systematic, in part
because California has not had a data system in place that tracks
students after graduation and provides critical student outcome
information to inform practices and improve their impact.
POSITIVEANDPERSONALIzEDRELATIONSHIPSANDsuppOrts
The students and parents we surveyed in each of the four
Linked Learning schools overwhelmingly believed that their
schools foster positive relationships, and parents feel respected
and included by school faculty. Further, parents are happy with
the level of individual attention each student receives.
Several structures and practices contribute to this person-
alized environment. One is the use of “cohort scheduling,”
FigurE 4: percentage of respondents who agree or strongly agree: “All students at our school are provided with a rigorous college and career- prep curriculum.”
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Counselor School Administration
Teacher
67%
81%
100%
Source: ETW survey data. (Question varied slightly for some groups.)
“We tell them, ‘No slacking off your senior year; you are expected to work really hard until you graduate.” –Teacher
72% oF STUDENTS aGrEE or STroNGly aGrEE:
“I know a lot about college and career planning.”
“All the teachers here really care. And no matter if you are in their class or not, they are still going to help you because they care.” —Student
“They take care of our kids like they are their own.” –Parent
6 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
where groups of students progress through the same set of
classes together in a given year. This type of scheduling not
only ensures that all students have access to the same college
and career-preparation offerings, but it also contributes to
students’ connection to their peers and teachers. In addition,
teachers at most of the schools reported that having longer
blocks of time to teach courses—along with an advisory
period—enables them to provide all students with additional
learning opportunities and personalized attention.
As part of our study, we also found that these four schools
offer a range of personalized, systemic supports to ensure
that all students can be successful. These supports include:
tutoring; weekly progress reports; on-line services to track
student progress; Web-based recovery courses; targeted
support courses before, during, and after school; and
curriculum adapted to students’ needs. Finally, because each
school serves fewer than 500 students (who are organized into
smaller groups by grade level and/or focus area), school staff
can focus on each individual student’s needs.
aduLt cOLLaBOratiOn in suppOrt OF thE LinkEd LEarning apprOach
Each of the four schools began with founding leaders who
embraced the Linked Learning approach. While articulating a
clear vision for the school community, they also established
“There is so much collaboration at this school; we collaborate with the Resource Specialist, by grade level, with our industry partners, with the leadership team, and by department.” –Teacher
structures, procedures, and systems to support quality Linked
Learning implementation within a distributed leadership
model, where school leadership is shared through inquiry,
dialogue, and partnership rather than defined through
position or roles.
Teachers consistently reported that they feel valued and
empowered to be leaders at the schools. They laud supports
such as common planning time that enables partnerships
between the school and leaders from businesses, industries,
and the community—partnerships that are critical in order for
the schools to offer real-world learning experiences. Teachers
also reported that their schools encourage collaboration
among faculty members, including teachers and support staff,
which allows them to develop and deliver rigorous, integrated
curriculum with supports that ensure student success.
prOgrams and pOLiciEs aLignEd tO schOOL gOaLsAny successful system, including a school, must align its
daily work to its overarching goals. The schools we studied
maintain a clear purpose and set of goals that drive almost
every aspect of the Linked Learning approach and design.
This means that time is spent purposefully, staff are assigned
in ways that can optimize student learning, and policies and
procedures are developed to help everyone draw closer to the
goal of preparing every student for college and career success.
In these schools, it is clear that the details matter.
Across all four schools, for example, parents demonstrated
awareness of the schools’ grading policies. Syllabi provided for
each course include detailed information about course require-
ments and grading, and each school uses rubrics for student
performance on all project-based learning activities. Makeup
policies for missed work are not arbitrary, and students in two
of the schools who do not pass an a-g course with a “C” grade
or higher are encouraged, if not required, to retake the course.
FigurE 6: percentage of respondents who agree or strongly agree: “The entire staff at our school believe that it is their job to prepare students to be successful in both college and career.”
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
External Partner Parent School Administration
84%
100%96%
Source: ETW survey data. (Question varied slightly for some groups.)
FigurE 5: percentage of respondents who agree or strongly agree: “Students who need additional support are provided with proper interventions to ensure college and career readiness.”
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
School Administration
Teacher
81%
100%
Source: ETW survey data.
7 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
Finding #2: sCHooLs Mitigate or eLiMinate traditionaL HigH sCHooL Barriers to student aCCess and suCCess in CoLLege-PreParatory Coursework.
With these promising practices in place, each of the four
schools has mitigated or eliminated barriers to college
preparatory (a-g) course access and success often seen in
traditional California high schools. In our previous work
in schools and districts, ETW has identified practices and
policies that prevent low-income students and students of
color from accessing college-preparatory coursework.9 Often
master schedules and placement policies keep these students
out of the most rigorous courses. Typical grading practices
cause many students to graduate from high school ineligible
for UC or CSU. Too few high schools provide the systematic
interventions students really need. Many school systems have
poor communication between the middle and high school
levels. The senior year is often not rigorous enough. And, as
mentioned earlier, academic tracking is widespread. These
obstructive practices and policies were not seen in these
schools. In Table 1, we compare and contrast typical practices
found in California high schools with those found in the four
Linked Learning schools.
Finding #3: sCHooLs enaBLe students to graduate at HigHer-tHan-tyPiCaL rates, But data on student aCHieveMent outCoMes is Mixed. While the evidence gathered through focus groups, interviews,
and surveys point toward many promising practices, are these
practices contributing to positive student outcomes? We turn
to that critical question by drawing upon publicly available
achievement and graduation data, before closely examining
student transcript data.
“There is never a time when the students aren’t first here.” –Teacher
“We align the resource…we decide here how we’re going to use it, and we discuss it.” –Teacher
In general, these schools outperform their surrounding
districts and the state as a whole when it comes to graduation
rates. When it comes to standardized measures of academic
achievement, the outcomes are varied. To be sure, a preferred
comparison group would be a set of similar students who
attended other, non-Linked Learning schools. However, that is
outside the scope of this implementation study and is being
taken up by other researchers.12 Regardless, our finding—that
graduation rates are higher than typical in these schools while
academic achievement is not—is consistent with the previous
research on career academies.13 See Table 2 for a summary
of results in the three schools for which state and district
comparisons are available.
Here, we examine each of these data points in turn.
graduatiOn ratEsEach school has high four-year graduation rates, overall
and by student subgroups, especially when compared with
its surrounding district and the state (see Figure 7).14 For
example, at School C, more than 90 percent of all students,
low-income students, and Latino students graduated within
four years, and more than 80 percent of African-American
students graduated on time as well. By contrast, in the
surrounding district, just 80 percent of low-income students
and 78 percent of Latino students graduated on time.
Statewide, the rates are even lower (that is, 70 percent of
low-income and Latino students, and 63 percent of African-
American students, graduate within four years).
FigurE 7: high school graduation rates for students by school with state comparisons (2010-2011)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Students Low Income African-American Latino
88% 90% 92%
76%
92%88%
93%
70%
92%
83% 83%
63%
79%
88%94%
70%
School A School B School C California
Source: california department of Education.
8 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
what wE typicaLLy sEEin caLiFOrnia high schOOLs
FOur cErtiFiEd LinkEd LEarning schOOLs
MASTER SCHEDULE AND PLACEMENT
Master schedules limit a-g and CTE-sequenced courses to only a portion of the student population. Electives are offered that do not fulfill a-g and career-preparation requirements.
All students take the same college and career-preparation requirements, with time strategically organized to ensure students are not tracked out of the courses they need. Students are expected to complete a-g coursework by graduation, and career requirements are embedded in their program of study. Few electives are offered, and those available meet college preparatory, or a-g requirements. Therefore, students are rarely confused about course selection.
GRADING PRACTICES
Many students fail to remediate “D” or “F” grades, even though the UC and CSU systems require at least a “C” in each course. Just one “D” or “F” during a student’s high school career can bar access to college. However, districts do not always allow students to retake courses, especially if a “D” grade was awarded—which many districts regard as a passing mark.
The schools articulate clear expectations for students, use rubrics to assess student work, and provide ways for students to make-up work and retake courses. To pass a course at two schools, students must earn a “C” grade or better; students achieving less than a “C” fail the course and must remediate their grade.
SYSTEMATIC INTERVENTIONSThere are few opportunities for remediation or interventions that can prevent students from falling behind. The most common intervention for students failing a high school graduation course is to retake the course.
Students who struggle are identified early and receive varied supports based on their individual needs. While the standards for mastery are not flexible, individualized supports help each student meet those standards. Supports include Web-based recovery courses, weekly progress reports, before and after school courses, tutoring, mentoring, an advisory period, and targeted support classes.
IMPROVING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCHOOL LEVELS
Elementary, middle, and high school educators rarely share information across grade spans, contributing to inconsistent standards and expectations as students matriculate within the system. This also prevents teachers from accessing critical information about incoming students. High schools rarely have robust, sequenced curriculum goals across grade levels, and their teachers rarely share student achievement and attendance information with one another.10
Students experience a coherent and progressive curriculum as they move from lower division (9th/10th) to upper division (11th/12th) grades. This is due, in part, to: (1) efforts to clarify academic standards within and across grade levels, (2) analysis of student performance data, (3) effective student support systems, and (4) collaboration among teachers across grade levels—allowing them to coordinate courses and interdisciplinary projects across the four-year high school curriculum.
SENIOR-YEAR RIGOR
Students in 12th grade often fail to take rigorous courses once they meet high school graduation requirements or minimum college entrance requirements, even though research tells us that students are more likely to excel and persist in college when they take rigorous capstone classes as seniors.11
Students are encouraged to take additional recommended a-g courses, including a third year of lab science, a fourth year of mathematics, and a third year of world language. Seniors also have additional requirements such as exhibitions, portfolio defenses, exit interviews, capstone courses, and internships. Many seniors are concurrently enrolled in college-level courses at their local community college.
TRACKING
Students are often placed into one of two common tracks: a college-preparatory track or a “regular” track aligned to less rigorous high school graduation requirements. Low-income, African-American, and Latino students are disproportionately represented in a lower track while white and Asian students are disproportionally represented in college-preparatory, honors, or other advanced courses. If students start high school in a non-college-preparatory track, they rarely move up, even when they perform at high levels. Conversely, if they start in a college-preparatory track and struggle, they tend to be permanently dropped down into a regular track.
All students are expected to take college-preparatory courses. In their recruitment efforts, the schools reach out to students traditionally underrepresented in particular fields such as science, technology, engineering, and math with the support of student ambassadors and industry partners.
taBLE 1: how Linked Learning schools address traditional barriers to a-g course access and success
9 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
taBLE 2: summary of student outcomes in Linked Learning schools, as compared with surrounding district and california as a whole
school a school B school c school a school B school c
All Students + + + + + +African-American + = + + + +Latino + + + + + +Low-income + + + + + +
All Students = = – – + =African-American – = – – – –Latino = + = = + =
All Students = = = = = =African-American – – + = – –Latino + + + + + =Low-income + + + + = +
All Students + + = + + =African-American – + = + + –Latino + + + + + +Low-income + + = + + =
All Students – + – = + –African-American – n/a n/a = n/a n/aLatino + – = + + =Low-income + – = + + –
All Students – – – – – –African-American – – – – – –Latino – – – – = –Low-income – – – – = –
All Students – = – – = –
All Students – = – = – –
as cOmparEd with statE
gra
du
atiO
nA
CHIE
VEM
ENT
as cOmparEd with district
cohorT GraduaTion raTE
a-G GraduaTion raTE
cahSEE - maTh (% PaSSinG)
cahSEE - ELa (% PaSSinG)
cST - 11Th GradE ELa (% ProFiciEnT + adVancEd)
cST - aLGEBra ii (% ProFiciEnT + adVancEd)
EaP - maTh (% coLLEGE rEadY)
EaP - EnGLiSh (% coLLEGE rEadY)
Source: california department of Education (using 2012 achievement data and 2011 graduation data). This data for School d is not reported to the cdE.
Symbols represent school-level student performance in relation to statewide and districtwide peer performance: – less well than + better than or = about the same (within 3%)
10 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
FOur-yEar cOLLEgE ELigiBiLity: a-g accEss and succEssWhile more students are graduating from the Linked Learning
schools, it is reasonable to ask how well prepared they are
for the future. Because the schools are focused on assuring
their students are prepared for the full range of postsecondary
educational opportunities—and because, in California, access
to a four-year college depends on completing the a-g course
sequence—it is important to understand how many graduates
successfully completed those courses. Unfortunately, available
data do not paint a clear picture.
Every year, California high schools report the percentage of
their high school graduates who have successfully completed
all 15 a-g required courses with passing grades (that is, with
grades of “C” or better). Data from the schools between
2008 and 2011 indicate that School B’s a-g success rates have
fluctuated but generally improved over time (and kept apace
of the district and state). At the same time, a-g success rates
for Schools A and C have dropped significantly over time (and
have lost ground relative to the state). As previously noted,
School D does not report a-g data. Despite the overarching
goals of each of these schools that all students graduate
eligible for admission to a four-year state university, our data
analysis shows a-g success rates fall short of that goal.
However, through many years of research and analysis
involving self-reported a-g data, ETW has found that this
indicator is not always accurate or reliable. With that in mind,
we conducted our own analysis of actual student transcript data.
studEnt transcripts: a cLOsEr LOOk at cOLLEgE rEadinEssIn order to better understand the success of Linked Learning
as it relates to college readiness for students, we reviewed
individual student transcript data from three of the four
schools for course-taking patterns. We sought to determine
both how often students are enrolling in a-g college prepa-
ratory coursework required for university admission, and
how often they passed those courses. Figure 8 shows both the
percentage of students who enrolled or “accessed” all of the
college-preparatory courses needed for university admission,
along with the percentage of students who successfully passed
those courses with a grade of “C” or better.
As part of this review, we found that our transcript analysis
yielded different results than the data the districts reported
to the CDE. Specifically, School A reported that roughly
25 percent of one racial subgroup of students successfully
completed a-g courses, while our transcript analysis indicated
what hOLds studEnts Back? dEtaiLEd cOursE-taking anaLysis REVEALSCRITICALPATTERNSANDTRENDS
our look at student access to and success with a-g eligibility details problem areas preventing students from successfully completing the a-g course sequence. among Linked Learning students who took all the necessary a-g courses, between 30 and 50 percent of them missed a-g eligibility in just one subject area. English language arts (ELa), social studies and math were the most common single-subject area barriers for student success. For example, nearly half (46 percent) of students at School c missed successfully completing the a-g course sequence because they did not pass all the required courses with a “c” grade or higher. among this group, 80 percent missed a-g eligibility because they did not pass all their required ELa courses.
Some students, however, failed to even take the necessary courses. World language courses were the most commonly missing on student transcripts. Thirty-three percent of students at School c, 63 percent of students at School a, and 88 percent of students at School B did not take required courses in world language. When students did have access, course failures in world language were rare. Similarly, if students took visual and performing arts and electives courses, they were very likely to pass those courses.
in contrast, science access and success was remarkable. in no instance did a student lack science courses needed for a-g success, and less than 2 percent of all students failed to complete their science requirement across three schools.
FigurE 8: student college preparatory course access (enrollment) and success rates by school15
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Students
Succ
ess
43%
Acc
ess
83%
Succ
ess
33%
Acc
ess
59%
Succ
ess
54%
Acc
ess
90%
Succ
ess
32%
Acc
ess
68%
Succ
ess
36%
Acc
ess
64%
Succ
ess
70%
Acc
ess
90%
Succ
ess
47%
Acc
ess
94%
Succ
ess
23%
Acc
ess
64%
Succ
ess
46%
Acc
ess
96%
African-American Latino
School A (2010-11) School B (2008-09) School C (2008-09)
Source: ETW analysis of student transcripts.
11 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
stiLL nEEdEd: a standard dEFinitiOn OF carEEr rEadinEss
california has yet to adopt an official definition of career readiness, though other states have done so. one definition that has gained traction nationally is offered by achieve, the non-profit education reform organization based in Washington, d.c. achieve launched the “american diploma Project network,” which aims to define the notion of college readiness within the following framework:
“college and career readiness means that a high school graduate has the knowledge and skills in English and mathematics necessary to qualify for and succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing postsecondary coursework without the need for remediation—or put another way, a high school graduate has the English and math knowledge and skills needed to qualify for and succeed in the postsecondary job training and/or education necessary for their chosen career (i.e., community college, university, technical/vocational program, apprenticeship, or significant on-the-job training).”19
nearly 50 percent achieved a-g success. Likewise, School B
reported less than 10 percent of one subgroup had achieved
a-g success when nearly double that amount did based on
our review of the transcripts. We also found that School
C reported 15 percent fewer students overall achieved a-g
success than our transcription analysis revealed.
Our transcript analysis also revealed that students at
these schools had much higher rates of access to a-g courses
than other high schools ETW has studied in the past; that
is, students at these schools enrolled in a-g courses more
frequently. At two schools, more than 90 percent of Latino
students enrolled in all the courses necessary to be a-g
eligible, and nearly 50 percent earned the grades needed to
successfully complete the course sequence. In many schools
and districts we have studied over the past five years, less than
50 percent of Latino students have access to a-g courses and
less than 15 percent complete the entire course sequence.
By improving student persistence through high school
and increasing rates of a-g course taking, these schools are
providing their students with a broader range of postsec-
ondary options than typical high schools. These benefits are
even more pronounced for the low-income, African-American
and Latino students who comprise more than 60 percent of
their student populations.
While these Linked Learning schools are exceeding the
district and state averages on the whole, our analysis suggests
they need to do more to close both access and success gaps for
their students in alignment with the vision that all students
graduate both college and career ready. Specifically, according
to our transcript analysis, only 23 percent of Latino students
at School B successfully completed a-g, and only 32 percent of
African-American students at School A did so. While the gap
may be due in part to district policy (which allows students
to transfer and graduate with “D” grades), the fact remains
that large percentages of students struggle to pass all their a-g
courses with “C” grades or better.
mOrE tO LEarn: carEEr-rEadinEssStudent transcripts also reveal a range of CTE courses, but it is
difficult to know whether completion of these classes qualifies
students to be “career prepared” in the way that a-g course
completion can make a student college eligible. While the CSU
and UC systems have agreed upon a set of course requirements
for eligibility, few industry sectors have similar course require-
ments. And, while the state has defined “career pathways” as
sequences of CTE courses in 15 major industry sectors,16 these
are merely guideposts, not required standards. California has
not adopted a standard definition nor any standard metrics
for career readiness—a void we hope can be filled.
Based on our transcript analysis, all of the graduates
of School C completed a career pathway comprised of
a state-defined sequence of courses.17 In the other three
schools, instruction is organized differently. Career content
is integrated into core a-g academic courses and often
aligned with college-level courses in community college dual
enrollment programs. This content is sequenced to demand
and support increasing levels of student knowledge, skill, and
application in specific careers. In schools A, B, and D, students
are expected to acquire and demonstrate career-readiness
in myriad ways, ranging from specific course requirements,
interdisciplinary projects and exhibitions, senior projects,
workplace learning experiences, portfolios, internships, and
community service. In these three schools, most students
completed a full a-g sequence of courses while also accessing
a rich array of career-preparatory experiences. The state has
funded efforts to increase the number of a-g approved courses
that integrate career and college preparation. As part of this
effort, the University of California Office of the President
created the University of California Curriculum Integration
(UCCI) Institute to support the development of a-g approved
courses that blend career and college preparation, and more
than 10,800 courses are already approved.18
12 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
Overall, career-readiness preparation is varied and difficult
to measure. Additional efforts are needed to provide a
clearer picture of career readiness in California high schools.
Chaptered legislation outlined in California State Senate
Bill 1458 (SB 1458) called for such efforts currently underway
to define and measure college and career readiness with new
sets of indicators.
ACHIEVEMENTAs part of our analysis of student transcripts, we also found
that test results for the Linked Learning schools are variable.
We analyzed student performance data on key standardized
assessments used for school accountability, including the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), selected
California Standards Tests (CSTs), and the Early Assessment
Program (EAP) to gauge student performance for the current
year and over the previous three years. Regardless of the
potential causes, the schools are producing mixed results
on standardized assessments.20 For example:
• CAHSEE: Every California student must pass the exit
exam in order to graduate. First-time passing rates can
tell us how many students are able to demonstrate
basic academic proficiency in 8th grade math and 10th
grade reading.21 Latino and low-income students at the
three schools with test data outperformed their state
and district peers on the CAHSEE English Language
Arts (ELA) and math tests in 2012. However, first-time
pass rates on the CAHSEE have declined from 2009 to
2012 for African-American students, and they now trail
their district peers in CAHSEE math pass rates. In these
schools, between 62 and 73 percent of African-American
students passed the math exam.
• CST:For the past three years, the schools have improved
their performance on the 11th grade ELA standards-
based assessments, overall and for African-American,
Latino, and low-income students.22 At School B, students
achieved 20 percentage point gains in proficiency rates
from 2010 to 2012 on ELA CSTs, outperforming their
district and state peers in every subgroup in 2012. Never-
theless, fewer African-American students at School A
and School C reached proficiency on the 11th grade ELA
CST as compared with their district and state peers. In
math, despite the fact that students generally improved
on the Algebra II End-of-Course exam (up between 4 to
9 percent over the past three years), all student groups
except Latino students at School B trailed their district
and state peers.
• EAP: The EAP determines whether students qualify to
enroll in credit-bearing courses (are “college-ready”),
or must take and pass remedial courses before they can
advance to credit-bearing courses through augmented
assessment items on the CST for the 11th grade English
and math tests (Algebra II and Summative math). Over
the previous three years, students at the three schools
have participated in the ELA EAP at higher rates (around
98 percent) but the percent of students deemed “college
ready” is still quite low (fewer than 25 percent of partici-
pating students achieved “college ready” distinction).
In math, the percent of participating students ranges
from 51 to 100 percent in 2012, but less than 15 percent
earned “college ready” status in mathematics. Students
do not consistently perform better than their state and
district peers across all three schools.
In summary, the high school graduation rates are consis-
tently higher for Linked Learning pathway students than
their state and district peers, and Linked Learning students
may access a broader range of postsecondary options than
students at more typical high schools. While some student
achievement data is stronger for Linked Learning students in
this study (for example, CAHSEE and ELA CSTs), it is signifi-
cantly weaker on others (Algebra II CST and EAP data). Other
measures of student achievement related to college and/or
career readiness remain elusive, but efforts to define and track
these indicators are underway. As the field continues to evolve,
each of these schools continues to enact practices to advance
student college and career preparation, providing critical cases
for other schools and school systems to learn from.
13 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
PART 2: IMPLICATIONS FOR DISTRICT-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATIONLinked Learning certified schools, including the four studied
here, offer powerful lessons and promising practices for
other schools and school systems to replicate. These lessons
are needed urgently, as Linked Learning is scaling rapidly.
Nine California districts have adopted the Linked Learning
approach as their primary high school reform strategy and
believe it will improve student achievement, motivation,
and college and career preparation. While the districts did
not begin their efforts at the same time, nor adopt the same
implementation plans to expand Linked Learning, district
leaders have leveraged opportunities to learn from experts
and from one another. This effort has become known as the
Linked Learning District Initiative (LLDI).
In this section, we examine how well three of these districts
are implementing and scaling the six effective practices we
identified in the certified Linked Learning schools: (1) a
culture of high expectations, (2) rigorous and integrated
academic and technical curriculum, (3) a commitment
to postsecondary readiness, (4) positive and personalized
relationships and supports, (5) adult collaboration in
support of the Linked Learning approach, and (6) programs
and policies aligned to school goals. In studying how well
these districts are implementing these practices—while also
ensuring systemic quality, rigor, and equity—we found both
areas of promise and ongoing challenges.
estaBLisHing a CuLture oF HigH exPeCtations at tHe distriCt LeveLLike the schools in this study, districts can establish high
expectations for students in both academic and career-related
content at every grade level. They can create rigorous graduation
standards that align to a-g requirements and can offer equitable
access to high-quality certified Linked Learning pathways.
In the three districts, we found that leaders are effectively
communicating expectations and ensuring access to quality
pathways. However, we also found that work is still needed to
overcome systemic inequities.
arEas OF prOmisE:• Districts are communicating expectations that all their
students must be prepared for college and career as
evidenced by their visions and missions, communi-
cation outreach, and strategic plans; each district has
passed a policy related to a-g completion, high school
graduation requirements, or their vision of what a
graduate should demonstrate in order to be college
and career ready.
• One district, in partnership with its local community
college and university, has communicated with all
students, parents, and faculty about what knowledge and
skills students must develop in order to be successful at
the postsecondary level.
• Districts have increased the number of certified Linked
Learning pathways to increase the number of students
accessing Linked Learning, with as many as five recently
certified pathways in one district; and they have used
data to determine how equitably students have access to
particular pathways.
• Districts are offering more a-g courses and more
a-g career and technical courses than ever before, in
particular within Linked Learning pathways.
arEas OF chaLLEngE:• Districts have not gone far enough to eliminate lower
level graduation requirements, the practice of academic
tracking, and master schedules driven by adult needs
rather than student needs. One district requires students to
pass all a-g courses with a “D” or better, and the other two
do not require students to take all the a-g required courses.
In both cases, students can fall short of a-g requirements if
they merely meet graduation requirements.
• Inadequate data systems prevent districts from accurately
flagging student pathway participation and charting
student progress—preventing school and district leaders
from adequately evaluating the impact of particular
interventions and supports. Missing data prevents
district leaders from assessing how equitably students
have access to and succeed in college and career-
preparation opportunities.
oFFering rigorous and integrated aCadeMiC and teCHniCaL CurriCuLuM at tHe distriCt LeveLThe schools we highlight in this report emphasize project-
based learning, and they offer students opportunities to solve
problems and apply academic knowledge in real-world ways.
Faculty acknowledge that while the Linked Learning instruc-
tional approach fosters engagement and deep learning for
14 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
both students and adults, it demands specialized knowledge,
sophisticated teaching strategies, and collaboration—
three things often absent in other schools.
Can these knowledge bases and practices be effectively
scaled districtwide? While it is too early to tell, these three
districts are trying to do so. It is promising that these districts
are intentionally building a Professional Learning Community
of leaders focused on Linked Learning. However, these leaders
also continue to face resistance and retention issues.
arEas OF prOmisE:• Districts are leveraging an expanding network of
colleagues and resources to support them in articulating
a vision for Linked Learning, providing necessary
structures to develop high-quality Linked Learning
instruction, and cultivating a professional culture in
which to engage in ongoing program improvement. The
Linked Learning pathway quality review and certification
process help clarify expectations.
• Linked Learning has spurred district leaders to identify
previously hidden equity gaps and set goals around
equitable access to coursework.
• Linked Learning has prompted districts to examine
teaching and learning practices and make positive
instructional changes in their pathways and schools.
• District leaders and staff praise the support they have
received from both internal and external coaches offered
through the initiative. Through these collective and
individualized supports, districts have been able to
coordinate efforts as they implement the initiative.
arEas OF chaLLEngE: • District leaders continue to face resistance from faculty
and school community members who do not wish
to change their beliefs, expectations, and practices to
enable a more rigorous and engaging curriculum that
integrates technical education. Leaders struggle to find
ways to provide both pressure and support to educators
who require significant growth in order to be effective
teachers, even apart from the additional teaching
demands in the Linked Learning context.
• Not all students have access to high-quality, work-based
learning programs. Practitioners admit it is difficult to
provide all students with meaningful work-based learning
experiences connected to the academic and technical
core. And although these opportunities exist in each of
the districts, their quality is inconsistent, and they are not
always serving students equitably. Further, they are often
not well integrated with classroom instruction.
BuiLding a CoMMitMent to PostseCondary readiness at tHe distriCt LeveLJust as the schools in this study embrace a commitment to
college and career readiness, so too must the district. Most
importantly, districts can set the tone districtwide by commu-
nicating clear expectations for postsecondary readiness. In
addition, it is important to ensure the integration of the
Common Core State Standards, cultivate partnerships with
industry and community partners, and provide robust data
systems to track students after high school.
In our district-level research, we were encouraged to
hear of the strategic planning efforts of all three districts in
support of Linked Learning and postsecondary readiness.
Districts face the ongoing challenge, however, of providing
all students with consistent access to quality school
programs. And, they continue to lack meaningful metrics
and good data by which to measure their success.
arEas OF prOmisE:• District leaders are constantly assessing the rigor of both
the academic and the career and technical aspects of
students learning experiences. They are also developing
strategies to improve student postsecondary readiness.
arEas OF chaLLEngE: • Districts struggle to develop and communicate a
well-articulated vision for college and career
preparation that spans the K-12 continuum and
ensures students are progressively challenged at
each grade level.
• Measuring and scaling the career readiness
component districtwide continues to be a
significant challenge given the lack of valid
and reliable metrics.
deveLoPing Positive and PersonaLized reLationsHiPs and suPPorts at tHe distriCt LeveLWhile individual student needs must be addressed at the site
and classroom levels, districts can create conditions that help
schools build positive relationships and offer personalized
supports. Districts should: (1) set the expectation that every
student can succeed, (2) allow for expanded and flexible use
of learning time, (3) encourage teachers to work together to
collectively address students’ needs, and (4) create systems
that allow educators to assess and monitor student progress—
15 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
and then determine what type of instruction or intervention
would be most effective for each student. Students and
parents should also be able to access relevant information in
order to support student goals.
Each of the three districts is building promising systems
and programs that facilitate student access to personalized
supports and adults in the community. However, the districts
face challenges with the demands of change and with building
new assessment strategies.
arEas OF prOmisE:• Districts are asking successful Linked Learning pathway
leaders to participate in professional learning communities
and cross-functional teams, so that the district is learning
from the existing schools and their successful programs.
• As districts develop new pathways, they are deliberately
designing them to enhance and support more person-
alized learning environments for students.
• Districts are developing more relationships with the
community, which has expanded student access to
interdisciplinary project-based learning and supportive
relationships with caring adults.
• Districts are providing a range of districtwide supports
and interventions such as student study teams, personal
tutors, and some on-line programs designed to meet
specific student needs.
arEas OF chaLLEngE:• Many adults are not ready to shift their roles, instruc-
tional strategies, or programs in ways that allow for
authentic interaction with students.
• Teachers need more help in diagnosing and addressing
students’ learning needs. Inconsistent and uncoordi-
nated district assessment practices mean that students
are not always assessed on what they are learning, and
teachers lack the time and support needed to process the
results and make instructional adjustments.
Fostering aduLt CoLLaBoration in suPPort oF tHe Linked Learning aPProaCH at tHe distriCt LeveLIn the four schools we studied, stakeholders told us
that their school leaders set a clear vision and rally their
faculty around that vision. Similarly, district leaders must
share a vision for Linked Learning with district and site staff,
as well as the broader school community. District leaders
must collaborate with community partners who are critical
to Linked Learning‘s success. And, they ought to establish
leadership teams that can guide and monitor the progress
of the district’s implementation plan and work with schools
to ensure the development of high-quality pathways. Part
of this effort requires recruiting, developing, distributing,
and retaining top talent at every level in the system.
These districts have successfully expanded stakeholder
“buy-in,” but coalitions and team development are not
consistently strong.
arEas OF prOmisE: • Each district has developed coalitions of stakeholders
from the district, businesses, postsecondary institutions,
and the surrounding community.
• Each district has strengthened its cross-functional Linked
Learning leadership team–due in part, districts tell us,
to their participation in the Linked Learning Leadership
Residencies and Summer Institutes. District-level
strategic plans emerging from these teams are becoming
increasingly more attentive to equity.
arEas OF chaLLEngE: • There is considerable variation in the practices each
district has employed to develop both broad-based
coalition and cross-functional leadership teams; and
they differ in how effective their efforts are in each area.
Organizing multiple systems and coordinating their
efforts proved to be a challenging task for some districts.
deveLoPing PrograMs and PoLiCies aLigned to distriCt goaLs While it is fairly natural for Linked Learning academy leaders
to align their programs and policies to their schoolwide
vision for college and career readiness, this is a bigger shift for
districts to make. Many are embracing Linked Learning as a
new reform strategy, and as such, have to move staff time and
attention, financial resources, and school supports from old
areas of focus into this new priority area. While each of the
districts is making promising progress, the shift is proving to
be slow going, with entrenched practices and policies further
slowing the effort.
16 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
arEas OF prOmisE: • Each of the three districts has enacted at least one policy
that explicitly supports building a system of Linked
Learning, such as strengthened high school graduation
or a-g requirements.24
• Following ConnectEd’s framework for systemwide
implementation of the Linked Learning approach, each
of the districts is working to align its resources, assess-
ments, and professional learning opportunities to goals
related to Linked Learning. However, there is much work
to be done here (see ‘Areas of Challenge’ below).
arEas OF chaLLEngE: • District-level policies and programs do not yet demon-
strate a pervasive commitment to Linked Learning. There
are few stated educational objectives related to Linked
Learning and professional development. Also scheduling
and resource allocation do not yet work in support of
broadening student access to Linked Learning.
• Even when districts are successful in recruiting and
developing teachers with the knowledge and skills to
implement Linked Learning, they struggle to protect
these teachers from seniority-based layoffs or transfers
due to constraints in state law and local union contracts.
additionaL CHaLLenges to sCaLing Linked Learning distriCtwide: data and sustainaBiLityAs mentioned throughout this report, the district has a
proactive role to play in ensuring educators, parents, and
students have access to accurate, timely, and relevant infor-
mation to inform student placement, progress, and outcomes.
While system infrastructures housing student information
can be costly and challenging to adjust, the opportunity costs
are greater when district leaders, principals, teachers, and
students do not have access to or use critical information to
drive their efforts. Current systematic efforts within the LLDI
present opportunities for districts to build their individual
and collective capacity to assess students’ college and career-
preparatory outcomes, but a deliberate and consistent effort is
required to sustain them.
The Linked Learning approach requires strategic financing
to sustain the types of services and activities that students
and adults need to engage in the approach. While the costs to
start and operate an academy vary depending on the model
implemented, academy leaders consistently emphasized the
need to: (1) facilitate site-based budgetary decision making,
(2) engage in strategic allocation of existing resources, and (3)
utilize creative resourcing with business/industry, community,
and other partners. Despite the fiscal implications of Linked
Learning, leaders at each of our featured schools and LLDI
districts have found innovative ways to ensure fiscal solvency
while maintaining efforts to improve overall program quality.
Despite pressing economic challenges, these districts have
continued to invest in implementing the Linked Learning
approach. LLDI districts are making steady progress towards
the goal of developing systems to support and sustain
pathways, but they must remain committed and focused on
scaling successful implementation of Linked Learning and
avoid diluting their efforts across too many initiatives.
ConCLusionThe days when high schools could be content with preparing
some students just for college and others just for work have
come and gone. High schools must change so that all students
exit with opportunities to go on to college and other postsec-
ondary education. The Linked Learning approach does not
guarantee postsecondary success. However, it is clear from our
research that when implemented with fidelity, the approach
provides students with expanded access to postsecondary
opportunities in college and career than students in traditional
high schools we have previously studied. As with any high
school reform initiative, the scaling from demonstration
models to broad implementation is an ongoing process accom-
panied with challenges and opportunities. As district leaders
seek to scale the approach and communities grapple with the
equity implications of this initiative, they should continue to
assess their implementation and that of their schools against
the best practices of certified Linked Learning schools. Their
successful efforts to transform the education and lives of
their students continue to provide a template for districts and
schools throughout California and across the nation.
17 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
nOtEs1. Education Trust–West, “Unlocking Doors and Expanding Opportunity: Moving Beyond the Limiting Reality of College and Career Readiness in California High Schools” (Oakland:
Education Trust–West, 2011), http://www.edtrust.org/west/publications.2. ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career developed and piloted the Linked Learning certification process in 2010 and continues to refine it. It is now referred to as the
Linked Learning pathway quality review and certification process. ConnectEd, established in 2006, is a nonprofit organization established to lead and support the development of Linked Learning as a model approach to high school improvement. Certification criteria can be found at: http://www.ConnectEdCalifornia.org.
3. Three out of four school-level sites we studied are independent schools where all students at the school experience the same career-themed pathway in a full-time program. Students at the fourth school participate in one of multiple career-themed pathways offered in a half-day program before or after a half day at their “home” school.
4. The Linked Learning Pilot Program is an initiative to develop and support districtwide systems and policies for the delivery of Linked Learning. Assembly Bill 790 authorized the California Department of Education (CDE) to administer the pilot program, which includes 63 districts and county offices of education serving approximately 600,000 high school students. This pilot builds on the work of the California Linked Learning District Initiative (LLDI) and offers technical assistance and other supports to advance districtwide planning and implementation.
5. To be eligible to apply to a four-year public university in California, students must take a minimum set of 15 college-preparatory courses known as the “a-g” courses and pass each of them with a “C” grade or higher. For more information visit: http://www.ucop.edu/agguide.
6. Schools A, B, and C serve higher percentages of students of color and low-income students than the districts in which they are located. School D serves a higher percentage of students of color and low-income students than one, but not both, of the districts that contribute to its student body.
7. Revealing the source for this data will reveal the school by name. School D does not collect free and reduced-priced meal information, but that does not suggest that they do not serve students from low-income families.
8. There were nine districts in the Linked Learning District Initiative in 2010 to 2012. Only one of the Linked Learning schools selected for this study was in an LLDI district in 2010 to 2012; however, our district-level analysis included three of the nine LLDI districts from that same timeframe.
9. Education Trust–West, “Unlocking Doors and Expanding Opportunity”, 4-5.10. Milbrey W. McLaughlin and Joan E. Talbert, Professional Communities and the Work of High School Teaching (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 124-30.11. Clifford Adelman, The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2006), 26-36. 12. Preliminary results will be available in spring 2013.13. See, for example, Charles Dayton, Candace Hamilton Hester, and David Stern. “Profiles of the California Partnership Academies 2009-2010” (Career Academy Support Network and the
California Department of Education, 2011) and Beverly Farr et al, “Evaluation of the Demonstration Sites in the ConnectEd Network” (Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates, 2009)14. High school graduation, a-g success, and student achievement data for 2010-2011 were available for School A, B, and C for this study. A previous study reports School D students had a
high school graduation rate that exceeded that of their district peers. The high school graduation cohort rate is calculated by determining how many students who were first-time ninth-graders in 2006-2007 graduated in the Class of 2012 using data from the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). Source: California Department of Education: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr11/yr11rel54.asp.
15. Our transcript analysis does not capture all the options for students to fulfill their a-g course requirements. While students may have met their a-g requirements through alternate means such as dual-enrollment courses at local colleges or qualifying achievement test scores, this data did not appear on student high school transcripts and we did not include it. There may also be a small percentage of integrated courses that was not included in our analysis, suggesting student access and success data could potentially be higher than presented.
16. These defined course sequences are part of the state’s framework for career and technical education that includes more than just the curriculum-based course standards.17. California Department of Education, Career Technical Education Framework for California Public Schools Grades Seven Through Twelve (Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Education, 2007), http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/documents/cteframework.pdf.18. California Department of Education, Career and College Transition Division, “California High School Career Technical Education Courses Meeting University of California ‘a-g’
Admission Requirements for 2011-12” (Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education), 12. More than 10,800 UC a-g approved CTE courses were documented across California schools in 2012. See http://www.ucop.edu/agGuide/ag/cte.
19. Achieve, Inc., http://www.achieve.org/college-and-career-readiness.20. Disaggregated student data for School D was not available for this report, but previous analyses using 2008 data report students exceeded the state average of students scoring
proficient on the 11th grade ELA CST, while students taking the Algebra II CST achieved a proficiency rate well below the state average.21. Human Resources Research Organization, “Review of the Appropriateness of the California High School Exit Exam Content Standards for High School Accountability”
(Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education, April 2006). This report identifies the grade levels of standards assessed on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). In addition, the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Blueprints for math and English Language Arts (available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/bpmath03.pdf and http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/bplangarts03.pdf) indicate students are assessed on math standards that focus on 8th grade general math standards but also include a limited number of Algebra I standards. The English Language Arts standards include 9th and 10th grade standards.
22. Based on a comparison of 11th grade students in different years, not based on longitudinal data of students over time.23. Lindsey Stuart, Alexandra Alyward, and Jeannette LaFors. “Catching Up to the Core: Common Sense Strategies for Accelerating Access to the Common Core in California” (Oakland, CA:
Education Trust-West, 2012). The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of academic content standards that aim to define the knowledge and skills students should achieve in order to graduate from high school ready to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training programs. More than 45 states and the District of Columbia adopted theCCSS by fall 2012.
24. LLDI districts are expected to enact at least one policy that explicitly supports building a system of Linked Learning; see: http://www.ConnectEdCalifornia.org.
18 ThE EducaTion TruST–WEST | Expanding accEss, crEating OptiOns | march 2013
1814 Franklin St., Suite 220, oakland, calif. 94612T 510/465-6444 • F 510/465-0589
www.edtrustwest.org
The Education Trust–West works for the high academic achievement of all students at all levels, pre-k through college. We expose opportunity and achievement gaps that separate students of color and low-income students from other youth, and we identify and advocate for the strategies that will forever close those gaps.
acKNoWlEDGEMENTS
We offer our appreciation to the Ford Foundation and the James irvine Foundation for their generous support of the initiative that made this report possible. We also offer our deep gratitude to members of the learning communities in the Linked Learning schools and districts who shared their experiences.cover Photos credit: connectEd: The california center for college and career provided the science lab and mock trial photos.
students
Linked
fidelityleaders
technical
work
experiences
curriculumprogress
collegeLatino
Learningcareercourses
supportdistricts
schools
outcomeschallenge
equity
academic
preparationpromising
leaders
African-Americanpostsecondary
California
readiness
rigorous
transcripts
teachers
a-g
experiences
accesssupport
parents
knowledge
graduation
pathways
top related